Having regard to the President’s decision of
28 March 2002 to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the Chamber’s decision of
16 April 2002 to extend the Rule 39 measure pending the Court’s examination
of the admissibility and the merits of the application,

Having regard to the observations submitted by
the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by
the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mohamed Bilasi-Ashri, is an Egyptian
national, who was born in 1966 and is currently residing in Austria.
Before the Court, he is represented by Herbert Pochieser, a lawyer practising
in Vienna. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent,
Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the
Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties,
may be summarised as follows:

1. The applicant’s political activities
in Egypt

The applicant gives the following account of
his political activities in Egypt.

In 1985 he joined the Muslim Brotherhood. He was an active member, being responsible
for giving speeches and attracting new members. In 1987 he was arrested
on two occasions because of his involvement with this group. He was
detained in the Hehie police station for periods of three and four days
respectively. He was beaten up, but did not suffer any severe injuries.

In 1988 the applicant become a member of the“Al-Gama-Al-Islamaya”
(Islamic Group), another Islamic fundamentalist group. In April 1988
he was again arrested and held at the Hehie police station for four
days.

Four months later, he joined the “Al-Jihad-Al-Islami” (Islamic Holy War - “Al-Jihad”).
According to the applicant, he considered this movement more powerful
than the previous ones he had joined. He was a member for one and a
half years, again engaged in propaganda work.

As the Al-Jihad had failed to establish an Islamic
state of Egypt, the applicant, in May 1990, joined the “Alquotbinjun”. Again, he made speeches and was responsible
for attracting members. In September 1990 he was arrested and detained
at the Al-Zakazik prison for a week. During the interrogations, he was
ill-treated and suffered from bleeding to the mouth and nose.

In June 1991, after having obtained a passport,
the applicant went to Saudi Arabia, where he stayed for eight months.

After returning to Egypt in February 1992 to
join his mother, wife and son, the applicant, in July 1992, resumed
his political activities. At the beginning of 1993 he was arrested and
accused of being a member of an illegal fundamentalist group. He was
brought to Zakazi prison, where he was ill-treated. He was released
after twenty eight days for lack of evidence.

Between April 1993 and March 1994 he was taken
for interrogation to the police station on several occasions, but was
always allowed to go home after a few hours. During these interrogations
no ill-treatment occurred, as he was no longer politically active.

In March 1994 mass arrests were carried out by
the Egyptian police. The applicant went into hiding for three weeks
and subsequently left for Albania, where he arrived on 30 March 1994.
In June 1994 he was joined by his wife and son. They stayed with the
family of his sister-in-law, who was living in Albania, until 18 April
1995. The applicant worked as a book-keeper. In April 1995 the family
left Albania.

On 20 April 1995 the applicant and his family
arrived in Austria.

2. Asylum proceedings

On 26 April 1995, in the course of an interview
at the police station of the Vienna International Airport, the applicant
filed an asylum request. Later in the day, the applicant, who was then
assisted by a social adviser of the Vienna “Caritas”, sent a fax
to the Federal Asylum Office containing supplementary submissions. In
the fax it was stated that the applicant and his son had been mentioned
by name in the Egyptian daily newspapers “Al Wafd”, “Al Ahram” and “Al Ahbar” on 16 and 17 December 1994, respectively. According
to those articles, the applicant had founded an opposition group called “Tahil al Laban”.
The applicant claimed that the Austrian authorities had failed to add
this information to the minutes of the interview which had been held
earlier that day.

The Federal Asylum Office, on the same day, dismissed
the asylum request. The authority found that the applicant’s submissions
were plausible as far as they concerned his alleged persecution between
1985 and 1991. However, as regards the subsequent period, it found that
he could not have been subjected to serious persecution. In this respect,
it noted that the applicant had been issued with a passport for his
departure to Saudi Arabia in 1991 and concluded that, if the applicant
had actually been considered a State enemy or militant fundamentalist
by the Egyptian authorities, he would have been unable either to obtain
a passport to leave the country or re-enter eight months later without
any problem. Furthermore, the Asylum Office noted that the applicant
had last been arrested in 1992, whereas he had not left Egypt before
March 1994. Moreover, it found that the applicant could have requested
asylum in Slovenia or Albania, both safe third countries.

The applicant appealed. He claimed that the records
of his interview were incomplete and that the Federal Asylum Office
had failed to take into account the additional evidence he had submitted
by fax. He further claimed that, in the course of the interview, he
was not allowed to give his account in his own words, but could only
answer the questions put to him by the police. In this regard, he alleged
that the officer had not asked him about the situation in the spring
of 1994 which had prompted him to leave Egypt. He submitted that he
had fled to Al Koren because of a new wave of arrests. He alleged that
eleven of his friends had been arrested, that his house had been searched
several times and that his pregnant wife had been asked about his whereabouts.
Both his father-in-law and brother-in-law had been arrested in order
to establish his whereabouts, and his mother had been interrogated as
well. Moreover, the applicant claimed that the doctor who took care
of his wife’s delivery was asked not to perform a caesarean because
of her husband’s political activities. Regarding his motivation for
joining the aforementioned Islamic movements, the applicant stated that
he had been attracted by their strong and energetic actions, but stressed
that he rejected violence. He claimed that his first arrest was facilitated
by the secret police “Amn Douwlat”. Once, in 1990, he had been beaten
with a cable and tortured using electroshock treatment. After that arrest,
he had been dismissed from his employment.

The applicant stressed that he had not been able
to stay in Albania any longer. He claimed that the Albanian Government
had provided the Egyptian Government with a list of Egyptian nationals
residing in Albania. This list was aimed at returning government opponents
to Egypt. In this respect, he referred to an agreement between Albania
and Egypt, in which the latter had offered economic support to Albania
if the Albanian government co-operated with Egypt in its fight against
fundamentalism.

On 11 May 1995 the Federal Minister of Internal
Affairs (Bundesminister für Inneres) dismissed the appeal. Referring
to the minutes of the interview, the Minister pointed out that the applicant
had confirmed that his submissions made on that occasion were exhaustive.
Thus, he found that the applicant’s new submissions lacked credibility.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional
Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).

On 30 May 1995 he filed a request for the re-opening
of the proceedings, submitting further newspaper articles as fresh evidence.

On 10 August 1995 the Constitutional Court granted
suspensive effect to the applicant’s complaint.

On 26 September 1995 the Constitutional Court
refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success,
and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).

On 19 March 1996 the applicant filed a second
request for the re-opening of the proceedings, submitting a newspaper
article published in “Al-Hayat” on 5 March 1996. In this newspaper, published in
London, the applicant was accused by the Egyptian Ministry for Internal
Affairs of being in contact with members of Al-Jihad and of planning
terrorist activities. The applicant, however, claimed that he rejected
violence of any sort.

On 15 July 1996 the Administrative Court granted
suspensive effect to the applicant’s complaint.

On 26 August 1996 the Federal Minister for Internal
Affairs dismissed the applicant’s requests for a re-opening on the
ground that these articles had been published after 11 May 1995, i.e.
the date of the appeal decision concerning the applicant’s asylum
request.

On 23 January 1998 the applicant filed a third
request for a re-opening, presenting two further newspaper articles.
The first one (“Alabra”, 5 March 1996) described him as one of several members
of an armed Islamic group currently under observation in Europe. In
the second article (“Goumhouria”) it was reported that the Egyptian State Security
Service had disclosed the name of the leaders of Islamic movements in
Great Britain, Austria and Albania. It stated that the applicant was
the head of the Al-Jihad group in Austria and had already been sentenced
to fifteen years’ imprisonment in Egypt.

On 30 January 1998 the applicant filed a second
asylum request, relying on the same evidence as submitted in his third
request for the re-opening of the proceedings.

Referring to the Asylum Act 1997 (Fremdengesetz), which had entered into force on 1 January 1998,
the Administrative Court, on 11 March 1998, discontinued proceedings
on his complaint filed against the decision of the Federal Minister
for Internal Affairs on 11 May 1995, and referred the case to the newly
established Independent Asylum Panel (Unabhängiger Bundesasylsenat).

On 4 February 2002 the Independent Asylum Panel
held a hearing in the applicant’s case. The proceedings are apparently
still pending.

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
in Egypt

In the meantime, on 15 December 1994, an Egyptian
public prosecutor instituted proceedings against the applicant and sixteen
other persons. They were suspected of belonging to an illegal association
whose aim was to threaten national order and security by means of violence
and terror. Further, they were charged with serious criminal offences,
which had been committed with the aim of financing their political activities.
On 25 December 1995 the Egyptian State Security Emergency Court convicted
the applicant in absentia of these offences and sentenced him to fifteen
years’ imprisonment and hard labour.

5. Extradition proceedings in Austria

On the basis of the applicant’s conviction
of 25 December 1995 the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, on 22 July 1998,
filed a request for extradition.

On 16 October 1998 the applicant was heard by
the investigating judge of the Krems Regional Court.

On 12 July 1999 the investigating judge filed
a report with the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), proposing that the request for extradition
be allowed.

After an oral hearing, the Vienna Court of Appeal,
on 21 December 1999, declared the extradition request inadmissible as
regards acts which were deemed to be political offences under section
14 § 1 of the Extradition Act. However, it granted the request in so
far as it was based on counts of forgery (Urkundenfälschung), robbery (Raub) and theft (Diebstahl), all committed within the network of a criminal
association (Bandenbildung). As regards the political dimensions of these
offences, namely that they were aimed at financing violent political
activities, the court found that, in the case at issue, their criminal
character clearly pre-dominated. In this respect, it referred to section
14 § 2 of the Austrian Extradition Act (Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz), which provides for a
case-by-case examination of politically motivated offences.

The decision was subject to the condition that
the decision of the State Security Emergency Court of 25 December 1995
would be declared null and void, and that the applicant would not be
re-tried before a court with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with political
criminal cases but before an ordinary court. In this regard, the Supreme
Court referred to section 10 of the Egyptian Code of Criminal Procedure,
according to which a conviction in absentia must be annulled as soon as the person concerned
is arrested, and a re-trial ordered.

On 21 June 2000 the Federal Minister of Justice
(Bundesminister
für Justiz) transferred the file to the Procurator General’s
Office (Generalprokurator)
for examination.

On 23 August 2000, upon the Procurator General’s
plea of nullity for the preservation of law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes) dated 5 July
2000, the Supreme Court quashed the decision insofar as it had declared
the extradition admissible, and referred the case back to the Vienna
Court of Appeal for further investigation. The Supreme Court found that
the Vienna Court of Appeal had not sufficiently specified the offences
on the basis of which extradition had been allowed.

On 20 December 2000, 24 January 2001 and 14 February
2001, following requests by the first instance investigating judge,
the Egyptian Public Prosecutor filed supplementary details about the
offences of which the applicant had been convicted.

On 25 October 2001 the applicant was taken into
detention with a view to his extradition.

On 12 November 2001, after a hearing, the Court
of Appeal again granted the extradition request on condition that the
decision of the State Security Emergency Court of 25 December 1995 be
declared null and void and that the applicant be re-tried before an
ordinary court. Further, the decision was subject to the condition that
the applicant would not be persecuted or suffer restrictions on his
personal freedom, or be extradited to a third country for an offence
committed before his surrender and which was not covered by the extradition
order.

Referring to the supplementary submissions made
by the Egyptian Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal stated that the
applicant could be extradited for various acts of theft, robbery and
forgery committed between January 1993 and 1 September 1994 in Ismailia, Sharquiea
and Qalyubia.
As one of the leaders of a criminal association, he was to be extradited
for inciting specified members of that association to steal two water
engines, a sheep, a water pump, a television and two gas bottles, incitement
to an attempted armed robbery of a lorry, incitement to sell these stolen
goods and the forgery of identity documents. Referring to academic commentaries
on section 14 of the Extradition Act, the court confirmed that, even
though aimed at financing political activities, these offences were
mainly of a criminal character. As regards the applicant’s request
for an expert opinion, the court recalled that, according to the relevant
rules of procedure, experts are not to be consulted on questions of
law.

Insofar as the applicant had claimed that the
asylum proceedings were still pending, the court found that, under Austrian
law, the fact that such proceedings were pending did not, in general,
hinder extradition.

Insofar as the applicant had raised Article 2
of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the court referred to the latest
Country Report (Egypt) of the United States State Department, according
to which ordinary criminal proceedings provide for two levels of appeal,
namely the court of appeal and the court of cassation.

Finally, the Court of Appeal stated that there
were no grounds to fear that the criminal proceedings in Egypt would
not comply with the requirements of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention,
as the applicant would be re-tried by an ordinary criminal court in
compliance with the conditions set out in its decision. It referred
to a private expert opinion of the German Institute for Oriental Studies
(Deutsches
Orientinstitut), which had been submitted by the applicant himself.
According to this report, criminal proceedings conducted before ordinary
Egyptian courts are, in the vast majority of cases, in compliance with
international standards.

As stated in the report of the German Institute
for Oriental Studies, allegations of ill-treatment during detention
in police stations are dealt with in the course of the trial and sanctioned
in accordance with both Egyptian law and international standards. The
court also referred to the Country Report (Egypt) of the United
States State Department for the year 2000,
according to which detention conditions in Egyptian prisons did, in
general terms, meet the standards required under Article 3 of the Convention.
In that report it was also stated that prisoners could successfully
file complaints relating to their detention and, since August 1999,
prisons were subject to inspection.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Egypt was
not a country where serious large-scale violations of human rights could
be considered an institutionalised everyday practice. Thus, there was
no general obstacle to extradition.

As for the applicant’s submissions that he
was at special risk of ill-treatment, the court noted in particular that,
for years, the applicant had voiced public criticism of the Egyptian
Government and had joined various illegal organisations. However, it
was noted that although he had repeatedly been arrested and questioned,
he had always been released again. It also noted that he had been able
to finish his university studies, find work, travel to Saudi Arabia
and return to Egypt eight months later without being prosecuted. In
these circumstances, the Court of Appeal found that there was nothing
to indicate that he would be subjected to persecution on account of
his religious or political views.

As far as the alleged ill-treatment in the past
was concerned, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s submissions
were not objective. In particular, the court stressed that the applicant
himself had stated that he had not suffered any visible injuries. It
therefore found that the medical expertise requested by the applicant
was unlikely to clarify the facts. As regards the applicant’s account
of his repeated arrests and ill-treatment in custody, the Court of Appeal
referred to the fact that the applicant had continued to live in Egypt
despite the alleged serious ill-treatment and that he had even returned
there after his stay in Saudi Arabia. It concluded that, in such circumstances,
his allegations were not plausible.

The Court of Appeal also considered a psychological
expertise prepared by an association supporting victims of war and torture
(Verein
zur Betreuung von Folter- und Kriegsüberlebenden), which had
been submitted by the applicant. According to this report, the applicant
suffered from a post-traumatic disorder resulting from severe torture.
The court noted that the report was entirely based on the applicant’s
own statements and, in this regard, pointed out several inconsistencies
with other statements which the applicant had previously made to the
Austrian authorities. Further, it found that the alleged psychological
disturbance, extending to memory loss as to his own age, differed from
the impression of the applicant’s testimony gained by the Court of
Appeal.

Insofar as the applicant had raised the issue
of family separation if extradited to Egypt, the Court of Appeal found
that his objections in this regard could not prevent extradition.

At the hearing before the Vienna Regional Court,
the applicant’s counsel, in addition to his written submissions, alleged
that the Egyptian extradition documents were forgeries. In this respect,
he referred to the report of the German Institute for Oriental Studies,
which had been obtained by the applicant on questions of the fairness
of ordinary criminal proceedings and political persecution in Egypt.
In the report, it was stated as an obiter dictum that, according to the extradition documents,
the applicant had been convicted, inter alia, of political offences under section 86, 86a and
86aa of the Egyptian Criminal Code. However, section 86 of the Egyptian
Criminal Code had been abolished by Law No. 112 in 1957, published in
the Official Gazette on 19 May 1957. Accordingly, the chapter on offences
threatening national security now commenced with section 87 only. In
these circumstances, the German Institute for Oriental Studies concluded
that the extradition documents were not authentic.

The Court of Appeal, however, found that the
applicant’s request for an expert opinion on their authenticity amounted
to an unacceptable “fishing expedition” (Erkundungsbeweis), as there was nothing in the case-file or
from the applicant’s submissions to cast any real doubt on this.

Referring to section 31 of the Extradition Act,
the court recalled that it was not its task to examine the well-foundedness
of the reasons for suspicion, unless there was strong evidence to show
that the suspicion was manifestly unreasonable. Thus, insofar as the
applicant had alleged that his conviction was based on witness statements
which had been obtained by means of torture, the court found that these
allegations, being purely speculative, were irrelevant to the proceedings.

Furthermore, the court saw no reason to apply
the hardship clause of section 22 of the Extradition Act, or to doubt
the existence of reciprocity as required by section 3 of that Act.

On 12 November the Federal Minister of Justice
approved the applicant’s extradition, subject to the conditions set
out in the Vienna Court of Appeal’s decision of the same day. Moreover,
he stated that the extradition would only take place on the further
condition that the applicant would be allowed to leave Egyptian territory
within 45 days in case of acquittal.

On 4 January 2002 Amnesty International issued
a press release in which it expressed concern that the applicant was
at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Egypt and called for “urgent
action”.

Note (Verbalnote) of 10 January 2002, the Federal Ministry for Foreign
Affairs informed the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt of the extradition
order. It was indicated to the Egyptian authorities that it was the
understanding of the Republic of Austria that the Egyptian authorities
would provide for visits by an official from the Austrian Embassy if
the Austrian authorities were to make such a request.

By letter of 22 March 2002 the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) informed the Minister of Justice
that, in the light of the documents submitted by the applicant and an
interview with him on 11 March 2002, the UNHCR strongly recommended that
he be granted refugee status on the basis that he had a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion if extradited to
Egypt. It urged the Minister of Justice to respect the applicant’s
particular need of protection and, hence, refrain from extraditing him.
The UNHCR underlined that the examination of whether the requirements
for refugee status were met was to be conducted by special authorities.
Under Austrian law, the Independent Asylum Panel had been established
to fulfil this task. Accordingly, the UNHCR found that the extradition
proceedings before the Vienna Court of Appeal did not provide for an
adequate and sufficient examination of the applicant’s objections
to the refusal of his asylum request.

On 31 May 2001 the Review Chamber of the Krems
Regional Court (Ratskammer) rejected the applicant’s request to suspend his
extradition, stating that it was not competent to deal with the matter.

The applicant filed a fundamental rights complaint
(Grundrechtsbeschwerde)
with the Supreme Court.

On 17 July 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the
applicant’s complaint, confirming the reasoning of the Review Chamber.

On 14 August 2002 the Federal Ministry of Justice
notified the investigating judge at the Krems Regional Court that the
Egyptian authorities had indicated that they would not accept the conditions
laid down in the extradition order. The Ministry of Justice stated that,
in these circumstances, it no longer intended to give a deadline to
the Egypt Government to accept the extradition order.

The applicant was released at 12.30 p.m. on the
same day.

B. Relevant domestic law

If, as in the present case, there is no extradition
treaty between Austria and the requesting State, the Extradition and
Legal Assistance Act, as amended in 1992 (Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz, idF BGBl 1992/756; “the
Act”), applies. Its provisions, as far as relevant, may be summarised
as follows:

Section 14 of the Act distinguishes between absolute
political offences in cases in which extradition is not allowed (§
1) and relative political offences, namely ordinary criminal offences
which were politically motivated. In the latter case, extradition may
only be granted if the criminal character of the offence outweighs its
political aspect. In this regard the way the offence was committed,
the means which were employed by the offender and the consequences produced,
or intended to be produced by the offence, must be taken into account
(§ 2).

According to section 19, extradition is inadmissible
if it is to be feared that the criminal proceedings in the requesting
State will not or did not comply with the principles enshrined in Articles
3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (§ 1); the sentence
imposed or to be expected, or the preventive measure taken or to be
expected in the requesting State, will be executed in a manner inconsistent
with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (§ 2); the person
to be extradited will be subject to prosecution due to his/her origin,
race, religious beliefs, membership of a certain ethnic or social group,
nationality or political views, or could expect other serious disadvantages
for one of these reasons (extradition asylum) (§ 3).

According to section 33, the Court of Appeal
decides whether extradition shall be allowed. The court sits in private
unless the Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office or the person concerned
requests a public hearing (§ 1). At the hearing, the person to be extradited
has to be represented by counsel (§ 2). The court decides by a formal
decision (Beschluss), which must be reasoned. The decision is pronounced
orally by the presiding judge. No appeal lies against it (§ 5).

According to section 34, the final decision on
a request for extradition lies with the Minister of Justice. However,
the extradition request must be refused if the court of second instance
has found against it. The Minister has to take the interests of Austria
into account, its obligations under international law, particularly
as regards asylum, and the protection of human dignity.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of
the Convention that he will be subjected to ill-treatment if extradited
to Egypt. He claims that the Egyptian extradition documents are not
authentic. He submits that he is at risk of continued incarceration
even if he is acquitted following fresh proceedings in Egypt. In this
respect, he also complains that the Austrian Extradition Act does not
provide the possibility to verify whether the conditions set out in
an extradition order are complied with.

2. The applicant complains that if he were returned
to Egypt he would not receive a fair trial before an independent and
impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention;
neither would he have access to appeal proceedings such as those guaranteed
by Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. to the Convention

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 of
the Convention that the extradition proceedings before the Vienna Court
of Appeal were unfair.

4. The applicant also complains under Article
13 of the Convention that no appeal lay against the decision of the
Vienna Court of Appeal.

5. Finally, the applicant complains that extradition
to Egypt would violate his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant,
reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances
lead to the conclusion that

(b) the matter has been resolved; ...

2. However, the Court shall continue the examination
of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court observes that the parties, by letter
of 28 August and 2 September 2002, respectively, notified the Court
that the applicant had been released from detention pending extradition.
The decision had been taken after the Egyptian authorities had informed
the Austrian Embassy in Cairo that they did not accept the conditions
set out in the extradition order.

In his letter of 28 August 2002 the applicant’s
lawyer claimed that the applicant, although released, was still at risk
of being extradited, since the extradition order issued by the Vienna
Court of Appeal on 12 November 2001 was still in force.

The Court is not persuaded by this argument.
It notes that, according to section 33 of the Extradition and Legal
Assistance Act, it is for the Court of Appeal to allow extradition and
to specify, in this respect, whether or not an extradition order is
subject to certain conditions. Under section 34 of that Act, the Minister
of Justice has to refuse extradition if and insofar as the Court of
Appeal has not allowed a request for extradition.

The Court observes that the applicant was released
from detention immediately after the Egyptian authorities had indicated
that they would not accept the conditions set out in the extradition
order.

The Court further finds that the applicant has
not submitted any elements which would substantiate his concerns that
the Minister of Justice would disregard the conditions set out in the
extradition order issued by the Vienna Court of Appeal.

In the light of these considerations, the Court
concludes that the matter giving rise to the application has been resolved,
within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention since the
applicant is no longer at serious risk of extradition.

The Court also considers that respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation
of the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the
application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 §
1 (b) of the Convention.